At 09:15 PM 2/17/98 -0800, Yaron Goland wrote:
> ... attempts to just define
>what "octet for octet" even means have utterly failed.
I understand. My suggestion was to remove those words to avoid the
implication that a server that did an "intelligent copy" (whatever
that may mean to it) is not DAV-compliant. Move does have the
same problem as you point out. I didn't notice any words in the
description of Move that would restrict an implementation's options
with respect to modifying the resource in arbitrary ways as a
side-effect of the Move.
-R